"In so-called classical thermodynamics, the Second Law, like the First, is formulated in terms of energy.

"It is in the transformation process that Nature appears to exact a penalty and this is where the second principle makes its appearance. For every naturally occurring transformation of energy is accompanied, somewhere, by a loss in the availability of energy for the future performance of work."

In this case, entropy can be expressed mathematically in terms of the total irreversible flow of heat. It expresses quantitatively the amount of energy in an energy conversion process which becomes unavailable for further work. In order for work to be done, the available energy has to "flow" from a higher level to a lower level. When it reaches the lower level, the energy is still in existence, but no longer capable of doing work. Heat will naturally flow from a hot body to a cold body, but not from a cold body to a hot body.

For this reason, no process can be 100% efficient, with all of the available energy converted into work. Some must be deployed to overcome friction and will be degraded to non-recoverable heat energy, which will finally be radiated into space and dispersed. For the same reason a self-contained perpetual motion machine is an impossibility.

Since, as we have noted, everything in the physical universe is energy in some form and, since in every process some energy becomes unavailable, it is obvious that ultimately all energy in the universe will be unavailable energy, if present processes go on long enough. When that happens, presumably all the various forms of energy in the universe will have been gradually converted through a multiplicity of processes into uniformly (that is, randomly) dispersed heat energy. Everything will be at the same low temperature. There will be no "differential" of energy levels, therefore no "gradient" of energy to induce its flow. No more work can be done and the universe will reach what the physicists call its ultimate "heat death."

Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

The evolutionist will not accept this conclusion, however. He hypothesizes that either: (1) some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time, or (2) some. natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space.

When he makes such assumptions, however, he is denying his own theory, which says that all things can be explained in terms of presently observable laws and processes. He is really resorting to creationism, but refuses to acknowledge a Creator."

The above argument is quoted verbatim from the ICR article Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy- IMPACT No. 3 1973, by Henry Morris. It is quite typical for an ICR document; it employs a lengthy quotation of the scientific position in order to generate the impression of scientific awareness, which is followed by a preposterous non sequitur and then some wild rambling about what the "evolutionists" think. No doubt he hopes that you will accept his account of what "evolutionists" think rather than taking the initiative to ask one for yourself; indeed, that is the entire modus operandi of ICR and every other creationist propaganda website.

If we simplify his carefully worded argument into its basic essence, its absurdity becomes more obvious:

That may appear to be a facetious summary, but it is basically accurate. To take a more thorough approach, he commits numerous logical errors in his argument:

• He correctly deduces that the laws of thermodynamics predict an eventual "heat death" for the universe, therefore they would imply that the universe is not infinitely old. However, he then proceeds to lie through his teeth and claim that science denies this, when in fact cosmologists estimate that the universe is 15 billion years old; obviously a finite number.
  
  
• He goes on to argue that time must have "come into existence" at the beginning of time. But the phrase "come into existence" requires a change of state over time, which is nonsensical if time has not begun! At the risk of oversimplification, consider the analogy of a stopped clock. Start it, and it will tick; does this mean that it had to "come into existence" at the moment it was started? Of course not; it was merely stopped, not necessarily nonexistent! We know that time slows down as you approach the speed of light, and that the particles inside a black hole are moving at velocities approaching c. Therefore, it only stands to reason that if the universe started from a Big Bang out of a superdense singularity, time was stopped until that event. It did not have to "come into existence" at that moment; to revisit my analogy, the clock was simply stopped.
  
  
• After the gigantic non sequitur described above, Henry Morris uses his "conclusion" that the universe came into existence to prove (via another non sequitur) that the only "scientific and logical conclusion" is divine creation. This argument is completely specious on its face, because it presumes that it is impossible to come up with a theory that that does not require the invention of divine entities (let's just ignore for the moment the fact that a theory is not even necessary in this case). In reality, there are literally an infinite spectrum of theories one could come up with, all of which have at least as much evidence as there is for the existence of God. While some religious-minded folk may find this offensive, I say without a trace of sarcasm that there is just as much evidence for the theory that the universe was farted out of a giant pig's posterior as there is for the idea that God said "let it be" and it was so.
  
  
• His last point is simply meaningless: he argues that evolutionists can only explain the beginning of the universe by arguing for "some natural law canceling out the Second Law", when no such law is necessary. The Second Law describes changes over time; it obviously would not predict any increases in entropy if time itself is frozen, so it is trivially easy to reconcile it with cosmology. Moreover, we have experimental evidence that time slows down as you approach the speed of light, so this is hardly an idle theory; it is well-supported by evidence. If you read ICR, you will find that dishonest tactics like this are very common: they pretend that "evolutionists" have no explanation for something when in fact, it is ridiculously easy to explain if you would just take the time to ask them, instead of letting Henry Morris put words in their mouths.

I hope I've done a reasonable job of enlightening you on this issue. It is a somewhat complex argument in the sense that it deals with the nature of time and the universe, but once you can grasp its basic elements, it is really quite easy to see how Morris has made a complete hash out of science in his efforts to promote his belief system.

Fallacy watch:

• Straw-man fallacy (repeatedly misrepresents cosmology in order to claim that it makes numerous irreconcilable predictions when it in fact does not).
  
• False dilemma fallacy (assumes there are only two possible hypotheses: his distorted version of cosmology and a sentient creator, hence concluding that if one is doubtful, the other must be true).